alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Alfacell  Corporation Balance Sheet as of January 31, 1999 and the Statements of
Operations  for the six months  ended  January 31, 1999 and is  qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          2,748,719
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,899,097
<PP&E>                                          1,143,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                    894,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,148,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             958,102
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           17,281
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,170,507
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,148,494
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  108,792
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,722,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,614,657)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,614,657)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,614,657)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
2200 IDS Center BRIGGS 

BRIGGS N D • • 

80 South 8th Street 

Minneapolis MN 55402-2157 

tel 612.977.8400 

July 12, 2012 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

fax 612.977.8650 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2W1000 

Re: Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

FDMA No. FAA-2012-0204 I , , 

FAA Case No. 2011NM210022 

Dear FAA and Judge Goodwin: 

?b 

Timothy R. Thornton 

(612) 977-8550 

pvolk@briggs.com 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Huerta v. Great Lakes Aviation Ltd. is scheduled for hearing before Judge Goodwin in 

Denver on November 28, 2012. The issue concerns Great Lakes' Quick Engine Change 

procedures. The FAA and Great Lakes have recently settled that case. 

Great Lakes, therefore, withdraws the pending request for a formal hearing. Case FDMS 

No. FAA-2011-0672 concerning station staff weight and balance documentation remains 

unsettled and is scheduled for hearing in Denver on November 27, 2012. Please keep that 

hearing on the schedule. · · · · · · · · · · " · 

Thank you. 

~-~< ~ ~ 

. . . ·. TunothyR. Thom~ECEIVED TRT/pv ·. 

cc: K. Lomazow 

4850189vl 

JUL f 7 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association 

Minneapolis I St. Paul I www.briggs.com 

Member- Lex Mundi, a Global Association of Independent Law Firms
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges 

EVELEE WHEELER (MOTHER) AND 

 ARTHUR RONALD WALDROP (DECEASED) 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 1677-05-3 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 8, 2005 

VIRGINIA PANEL CORPORATION AND 

 CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Thomas W. Dixon, Jr.; Nelson, McPherson, Summers & Santos, 

L.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Cathleen P. Welsh; Keeler Obenshain PC, on brief), for appellees. 

 Evelee Wheeler, mother of Arthur Ronald Waldrop (decedent), appeals a decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Commission denying benefits on the basis that the evidence failed to 

establish a causal connection between the decedent’s work-related injury and his death several 

years later. Wheeler also contends the commission erred in refusing to consider Dr. Thomas J. 

Spicuzza’s June 27, 2004 letter and a letter issued by the medical examiner’s office on August 

16, 2004 as after-discovered evidence.1

 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Waldrop et al. v. Virginia Panel Corporation, VWC 

File No. 193-84-21 (June 10, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 In light of our decision summarily affirming the commission’s decision, we decline to 

address the question presented by employer regarding Wheeler’s standing to assert a claim for 

death benefits. We note that the commission did not specifically decide that issue, but only 

alluded to it in dicta in its opinion. 
- 2 - 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
§ 552.5 Improperly filed petitions. ( a ) A petition that is not addressed as specified in § 552.4, but that meets the other requirements of that section, will be treated as a properly filed petition, received as of the time it is discovered and identified.
( b ) A document that fails to conform to one or more of the requirements of § 552.4(a) through (e) will not be treated as a petition under this part. Such a document will be treated according to the existing correspondence or other appropriate procedures of the NHTSA, and any suggestions contained in it will be considered at the discretion of the Administrator or his delegate.
Royal Institution 

of Chartered Surveyors 

60 East 42nd Street 

Suite 2918 

New York, NY 10165 

USA

t +1 212 847 7400 

f +1 212 847 7401 

e ricsamericas@rics.org 

ricsamericas.org

March 11, 2011 

Phyllis C. Borzi 

Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

Re: Definition of “Fiduciary” Proposed Rule 

Dear Ms. Borzi: 

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) represents a significant number of real estate 

appraisers in the Americas. We are writing this letter in response to the recent proposal by Employee 

Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) entitled - Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”, (29 CFR Part 2510, 

RIN 1210-AB32). The document contains a proposed rule that EBSA apparently believes, upon adoption, 

would protect beneficiaries of pension plans and individual retirement accounts by more broadly 

defining the circumstances under which a person is considered to be a “Fiduciary” by reason of giving 

investment advice to an employee benefit plan or a plan’s participants. 

There are several references written into the proposal defining real estate appraisers as being scoped in 

this standard as Fiduciaries in the course of their work. We believe this is not appropriate. 

We know that several other professional bodies representing individuals and firms in the real estate 

appraisal space have already commented and provided sufficient evidence as to why appraisers should 

not be included. Without repeating the reasons already provided in great detail, we would like to 

concur with the statements provided by NCREIF, ASFMRA, ASA and others. As real estate professionals, 

we have standards that we abide by in creating appraisals, in providing advice and upholding our 

independence in the process. While we have sufficient insight into the risks and rewards of certain 

business actions, we serve the clients’ interest only from a valuer’s perspective, one obligated to be 

impartial and objective, and not from that of a Fiduciary. 

We welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further and can provide substantial insight into the 

real estate appraisal process, including the development and enforcement of standards. Also, as a 

global professional body, we can offer best practices from around the world that would enhance the 

body of knowledge on this topic and provide additional clarity in the development of your proposal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this response. Please do not hesitate to contact me so that we 

can discuss this issue further. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Chairman, Valuation Council, RICS Americas 

Cc: RICS Americas Valuation Council Leadership Committee
**Exhibit 24.5**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, **Sue L. Gin**, do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Randall E. Mehrberg, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name andon my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2003 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform allthings necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present. 

 

/s/    SUE L. GIN
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1067
ANDREWS BARTLETT & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, now known as GES Exposition Services, Incorporated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusAMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEALTH-SYSTEMS PHARMACISTS, INCORPORATED (ASHP), formerly known as American So ciety of Hospital Pharmacists, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 97-1068
ANDREWS BARTLETT & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, now known as GES Exposition Services, Incorporated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusAMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEALTH-SYSTEMS PHARMACISTS, INCORPORATED (ASHP), formerly known as American Soc iety of Hospital Pharmacists, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-2671-K) Argued: October 2, 1997 Decided: November 12, 1997 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAGILL, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Julie Hions O'Kane, DRAGE, deBEAUBIEN, KNIGHT, SIMMONS, ROMANO & NEAL, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant. Jeffrey Moore Johnson, DICKSTEIN, SHAPIRO, MORIN & OSHINSKY, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David H. Simmons, DRAGE, deBEAUBIEN, KNIGHT, SIMMONS, ROMANO & NEAL, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant. Julia A. Bronson, DICKSTEIN, SHAPIRO, MORIN & OSHINSKY, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: This case arises out of a dispute between the plaintiffappellant, Andrews Bartlett & Associates, Inc., and the defendantappellee, American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists, Inc. (ASHP). The two parties had an extended contractual relationship during which Andrews Bartlett produced conventions and meetings for ASHP. In 1994 ASHP ended this relat ionship under a termination clause in the most recent contract. Andrews Bartlett sued ASHP, and the district court held (1) that the termination clause unambiguously granted ASHP the right to end the contract if it was dissatisfied with Andrews Bartlett's performance and (2) that there was sufficient uncontroverted evidence of that dissatisfaction to merit summary judgment for ASHP. Andrews Bartlett appeals, and we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Andrews Bartlett & Associates, Inc. v. American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists, Inc. , Civil Action No. K-95-2671 (D. Md. Nov. 25, 1996).

AFFIRMED
1210-AB32-2-1652.html[7/26/2015 9:30:29 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jy3-ocoo

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2150

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: martha johnson

Address:

4671 s greythorne way

Chandler, AZ, 85248

Email: marti_johnson@yahoo.com

Phone: 925-323-7475

General Comment

Please leave our 401Ks and IRAs alone. Unlike the government, some of us actually can balance a budget and

 manage to save a little something. I do not need the Federal government handling my finances for me or making

 up rules for my financial adviser that's going to limit my choices and lessen the amount i can save for retirement.

I would like to save enough to retire sometime before I die. Obamacare did enough damage screwing up my

 health care choices.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2021

No. 04-20-00598-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CARLOS Y. BENAVIDES, JR., an 

Incapacitated Person,

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PB6–000081-L2

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Leticia R. Benavides’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief is GRANTED. The appellant’s reply brief is due on September 24, 2021.

Entered on this 22nd day of September 22, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Attested to: _____________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57130-57131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17971]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1239]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Pisgah 
Laboratories Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

[[Page 57131]]


ACTION: Notice of application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pisgah Laboratories Inc. has applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer 
to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
October 23, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before October 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on July 10, 2023, Pisgah Laboratories Inc, 3222 Old 
Hendersonville Highway, Pisgah Forest, North Carolina 28768, applied to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) 
of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ibogaine...............................     7260  I
Tapentadol.............................     9780  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the above-listed controlled 
substances in bulk for internal research purposes and distribution to 
its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized 
for this registration.

Claude Redd,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-17971 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
1210-AB32-2-1198.html[7/24/2015 7:32:38 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvs-seka

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1692

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Bonita Musick

General Comment

Lay off private retirement plans, Go for government lawmakers that put us in this mess before you even talk

 about private plans.
#### John Kerley, Respondent, v. Sanderson Brothers Steel Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.;

Follett, J.. not sitting.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0676 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Zoe Ann Cooley 

Address: 

P.O. Box 1042 

Pullman, WA, 99163 

Organization: NAMI/Palouse 

General Comment 

On behalf of NAMI/Palouse, I am writing to submit comments on the Interim Final Rules under 

the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 and 

in doing so, NAMI/Palouse endorses the separate comments submitted by the Parity 

Implementation Coalition and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. 

Members of our affiliate are keenly aware of the need for better mental health services and 

substance abuse services to our loved ones and we have experienced barriers to good care from 

insurance companies. The people of this country and our Congressional representatives voted for 

the Parity Act and we expect full implementation of the intent of that act. 

It would be a travesty if health plans were allowed to block enforcement of the regulations and to 

undermine specific protections in the rules. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: May 03, 2010 

Received: May 02, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae520d 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
EXHIBIT 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of RegeneRx (the "Company") on Form
10QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.J. Finkelstein,
Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and result of
                operations of the Company.




     August 12, 2002                        /s/ J.J. Finkelstein
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Chief Executive and Financial Officer


                                       1
From: Joan burns [mailto:jbakatoo@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 12:08 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: ANNUITIZATION OF 401(k) and IRA

These retirement accounts have enjoyed the popularity of my generation because we 

know that the failure of government to handle Social Security in a responsible manner 

made it necessary to save for our own retirement. For a long time, it has been known 

that what we have been paying in over the years was a give away and wouldn't be there 

when we could no longer work. 

 

The annuitization is a way for Washington to make a grab for our retirement savings just 

when the funds are needed, and we won't be hoodwinked into believing you are doing us 

any favors. Come what may, I would rather take the risk of my own choices rather than 

those of a Washington bureaucracy. LEAVE OUR RETIREMENT SAVINGS ALONE.

 

J. Burns 

Laguna Hills, CA
Merrimack,

Dec., 1895.

#### Shepard v. Provident Mutual Relief Association.

Assumpsit. Facts found by the court. The plaintiff' is the executor of the will of James Bradford, and seeks to recover the amount of a benefit in the defendant association. The byJaws of the association provide that the amount specified in a member’s certificate shall be paid “ to his direction, as entered upon his certificate or the roll book of the association ”; and if the beneficiaries are deceased and there is no surviving widow or widower, “ it shall become a part of the estate of the deceased member and may be disposed of by will.” At the time of the insured’s death, his certificate was made payable “ to James Minot, as his claim shall appear, and the balance according to the provisions of said Bradford’s will.” In his will, Bradford made several bequests and appointed the plaintiff executor of his estate and residuary legatee, but did not refer specifically therein to his insurance. lie left no widow, children, or other relatives.

*Sargent*<f *Hollis,*for the plaintiff'.

*Walter J). Hardy,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.****

In the absence of a brief from the defendants, no valid ground of defence is suggested. As the balance of the insurance alter satisfying Minot’s claim was not specifically disposed of in Bradford’s will, it was payable to his estate under the by-laws; and the estate is represented by the executor.

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

*

 See foot-notes on pages 22 and 876.